NC0000272_Other Agency Documents_20220401 (2)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Blue Ridge Paper
NC0000272
April 16, 2021
COMMENTS FROM GENERAL PUBLIC and SEVERAL ENTITIES
Temperature: Over 8,500 fish were killed in the summer of 2007 from an extremely hot discharge from
the paper mill. This hot water discharge did not violate the temperature permit limits at the mill, because
their limits rely on a monthly average, which allows wild swings in the temperature of the discharge, and
potential fish kills.
Recommendation: The Depaitalent of Environmental Quality should set a daily average limit for the mill
to ensure that aquatic life is protected and future fish kills are avoided.
Response:
The University of Tennessee studies in 2014 indicated that Pigeon River below the discharge contains
balanced and indigenous population of fish and macroinvertabrates and DWR biologists concur with
these conclusions. The previous studies by University of TN had the same conclusions. In addition,
during the last renewal the delta T for the permit (upstream and downstream temperature) was reduced
from 13.9 degrees Celsius to 8.5 degrees Celsius based on the actual mill performance evaluation
conducted by EPA. Therefore, there is no need to make additional changes to the temperature standards.
The large fish kills during the summer 2007 were largely attributed to the exceptional drought and did not
occur before or after that year. In 2007 fish kills at other locations were also reported.
Furthermore, the temperature has been historically regulated as a monthly average limit in all North
Carolina wastewater permits. The Blue Ridge Paper operation does not produce wastewater with
significant fluctuation in the temperature as evidenced by the discharge monitoring reports. However, the
DWR will change the limit to the Weekly Average to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
Dioxin: Reduction in dioxin fish monitoring in the draft permit is being proposed. Current monitoring
requires monitoring 3 times in 5 years, but the new draft permit reduces that to once every 5 years. This is
problematic for two reasons. The most recent sampling conducted in 2014 still shows dioxin in fish
tissue, and therefore monitoring on at least the same schedule should be continued until dioxin is no
longer present in fish tissue samples. Secondly, the permit renewal cycle is many years overdue, the last
fish tissue sample was taken over six years ago. That means, if new sampling is conducted only once in
the next five years, that could mean that we only have one sample in 11 years.
Recommendation: DEQ should maintain the same sampling schedule of three times within every five
years.
Response:
Elevated levels of dioxins were found in fish tissue in the Pigeon River (around the late 1980s).
Subsequently, a fish consumption advisory was issued for sport fish, catfish, and carp. The Canton Mill
has not discharged any detectable levels of 2,3,7,8 TCDD to the Pigeon River (since 1989) and dioxin in
fish tissue continues to decline. Most fish consumption advisories in North Carolina and Tennessee were
removed in 1998 and 2002. The last fish advisory for Common Carp in Waterville Lake was removed on
January 7, 2007. There are no fish advisories in the Pigeon River at this time.
Page 1 of 19

The May 2010 NPDES Permit (the last permit issued) for the Blue Ridge Canton Mill required three (3)
additional years of fish tissue sampling and surveillance During the sampling years between 2008-2013
the concentrations in fish tissue fillets were below the NC DHHS 4 ppt TEQ [toxic equivalency] action
level for fish consumption advisory. In 2014, TEQ values were below detection for channel catfish for
both sampling Stations; however, in common carp, TEQ values were 9.619 ppt for Station 4A and 2.928
for Station 4B. The TEQ results for common carp fillets in 2014 and 2007 could be anomalies, or could
indicate that some fish are present in the population with relatively higher TEQ values.
EPA conducted a High Volume dioxin sampling in the Pigeon River in 2014 and concluded that "the
most potent of congeners in the series, 2,3,7,8 — TCDD, was not detected in dissolved samples at the
reporting limit of 0.0012 parts per quadrillion at any station".
During the previous permit renewal all sampling results showed results below TEQ action level. Since the
fish dioxin concentration have been reduced steadily during the last several decades and the facility had
no dioxin detection in it's effluent since 1989 and the EPA High Volume dioxin sampling results, the fish
tissue sampling requirement in the permit will be reduced from 3 times/5 years to 1 time/5 years.
However, if any sampling result shows a TEQ exceedance, the facility shall conduct an additional round
of fish sampling.
In addition, the Dioxin congeners in the discharge will be monitoring on the annual basis. Only fish
tissue monitoring is being reduced to once/5 years.
Fecal Coliform: The mill not only processes its own waste, but also serves as a wastewater treatment plant
for the town of Canton. Violations for fecal coliform have been frequent in the last decade with Mountain
True documenting at least 25 permit violations, sometimes in excess of 250 times the safe limit for fecal
coliform. The Mill has also commonly violated its permitted standards for total suspended solids and
biological oxygen demand.
Recommendation: DEQ should require significant improvements to the wastewater treatment plant to
ensure the river and downstream river recreation users are protected from harmful and dangerous levels of
bacteria in the river.
Response:
Blue Ridge Paper Products treats all domestic wastewater from the Town of Canton in addition to
industrial wastewater produced from mill processes. The acceptance and treatment of a town's domestic
wastewater by an industrial treatment process is atypical. An agreement to disinfect the town's
wastewater prior to it being introduced to the facility's treatment process exemplifies the inherent
complexity in addressing fecal coliform at the facility. Responding to and addressing fecal coliform
exceedances at this facility necessitates a collaborative approach coupled with an in-depth understanding
of wastewater chemistry and engineering. DWR believes we have applied an appropriate tiered
enforcement strategy in response to the fecal coliform exceedances and violations. The last fecal coliform
permit violation was documented February 2019.
Chloroform: DEQ is proposing to allow the mill to increase their discharge of chloroform, a possible
carcinogen. The goal of the Clean Water Act is to reduce pollution discharges until all waters are fishable
and swimmable. In this instance, not only is the discharge not decreasing, but the mill will be allowed to
discharge even more cancer causing chemicals into the Pigeon River. The 2010 permit allowed for
chloroform discharge allowances of 5.1 or 8.6 monthly. The 2021 proposed permit ups those limits to
6.27 lbs/day (as a monthly average) and 10.5 lbs/day (daily maximum).
Page 2 of 19

Recommendation: DEQ should reduce discharge allowance for chloroform, not let the paper mill pollute
more.
Response:
The Chloroform limits in the permit are the Technology Based Limits on the internal outfall, they are
based on the EPA Effluent Guidelines in 40 CFR 430 Subpart B. Wastewater discharged from the internal
outfall is being treated by the wastewater treatment system. The facility is not violating nationwide
Chloroform water quality criteria in the Pigeon River. Typically, the facility is discharging less than 3.5
microgram/Liter, which is significantly less than the water quality criterion of 60 microgram/Liter. The
average concentration of the chloroform in the discharge is 1.75 microgram/Liter.
However, the DWR recommends reducing Chloroform limits to the level implemented in the previous
permit. The same have been done for AOX (adsorbable organic halides) limits, Pentachlorophenol limits,
Trichlorophenol limits, and TSS limits.
Comment:
Bad taste: The water in the river has bad taste.
Response:
The facility discharges a number of chemical compounds that might have bad taste. However, the color
consists primarily of lignins and tannins that don't contribute to bad taste. There are numerous black
water streams in the state with very high concentration of lignins and tannins, much higher than in the
Pigeon River. Nevertheless, taste issues have not been reported.
Color: Color consists of dangerous chemicals.
Response:
The color consists primarily of lignins and tannins, these are natural compounds. There are numerous
black water streams in the state with very high concentration of lignins and tannins, much higher than in
the Pigeon River. These streams support fish and macroinvertebrate communities unless there are other
limiting factors present.
Comment:
Flow increase: Increase of flow from 29.9 MGD to 34.0 MGD will have a negative impact on the
receiving stream
Response:
Flow increase is necessary to accommodate wet scrubbers that were installed to meet more stringent air
quality requirements.
Comment:
There looks to be 5 locations for monitoring: influent; effluent; the Pigeon River; and two other effluents
of wastewater before entering the wastewater treatment plants. This does not seem to be enough locations,
and, in some cases, not enough sampling frequency. What is the justification for those that are only tested
quarterly and annually?
Response:
Monitoring locations are based on the results of the instream modeling results and legal agreements
requirements.
Page 3 of 19

Frequency of monitoring and number of parameters that are being monitored are based on results of the
reasonable potential analysis (RPA) and requirements contained in the Federal and State rules and
regulations. If a parameter shows reasonable potential and requires a limit, monitoring is generally at a
monthly or quarterly frequency. If a parameter does not show reasonable potential, monitoring might not
be required. Monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and priority pollutant scans (required with
each permit renewal) are evaluated for RPA with each renewal. The proposed monitoring frequencies
will provide adequate information to conduct RPA for the next permit renewal. The Division has a long
term monitoring data for this facility discharges and accumulated a statistically significant dataset for all
typical pollutants associated pulp and paper manufacturing. This data set allows for an accurate
characterization of the discharge at the frequency prescribed in the permit. Furthermore, the EPA has
approved the proposed monitoring frequency.
COMMENTS FROM NCWRCC
Comment:
Biological community: Biological community above and below discharge is different.
Response:
Despite the differences in the biological community, the threshold for Balanced and Indigenous
Population (BIP) as defined in the EPA Guidance has been met. This conclusion has been made by a
world -renown fisheries biologist Dr. Coutant, the DWR biologists agreed with the conclusion.
Comment:
Temperature should be monitored on a continuous 15-minute interval.
Response:
This would be an unprecedented requirement for North Carolina, which would create an undue burden on
the permittee and cannot be legally defended due to the consistent positive BIP determinations.
Presumably, the 8.5° C exceedance is not in addition to the 29° C and 32° C thresholds.
Response:
This is not correct, both requirements are applicable.
Comment:
We request that the permit require analysis of individual constituents that are responsible for the high
conductivity levels.
Response:
Most of the required parameters are already provided in the renewal applications (EPA Form 2C).
Furthermore, there are no process changes available that would reduce conductivity in the discharge.
There are only 2 technical options available to reduce conductivity: installation of Reverse Osmosis or
Vapor Compression Evaporator. Both options are extremely expensive and not feasible. In addition,
Reverse Osmosis would create a highly toxic waste stream that has to be disposed somewhere, and
disposal options are not available or extremely expensive.
We recommend that a BISS technical team be established that includes the NCWRC (NCWRCC
comment).
Page 4 of 19

Response:
The permit will require that the facility provides the next BIP study plan to NCWRCC for comments.
Comment:
Salinity be measured at each site.
Response:
Most of the parameters responsible for salinity are already provided in the renewal applications (EPA
Form 2C). Furthermore, there are no process changes available that would reduce conductivity in the
discharge. There are only 2 options available to reduce conductivity: installation of Reverse Osmosis or
Vapor Compression Evaporator. Both options are extremely expensive and not feasible. In addition,
Reverse Osmosis would create a highly toxic waste stream that has to be disposed somewhere, and
disposal options are not available or extremely expensive.
COMMENTS FROM SELC
Comment:
The Draft Permit fails to set daily temperature thresholds as required by law.
Blue Ridge Paper's BIP study is flawed and cannot support a continued thermal variance.
Response:
The law does not require daily temperature limits. The University of Tennessee studies in 2014 indicated
that Pigeon River below the discharge contains balanced and indigenous population of fish and
macroinvertabrates and DWR biologists concur with these conclusions. Furthermore, EPA did not
contradict the conclusions reached by the studies. The previous studies by University of TN had the same
conclusions. The studies were conducted by Dr. Coutant, he is one of the primary authors of the EPA
316a Guidance and the world -renown fish biologist. Dr. Coutant also provided additional comments to
respond to the EPA questions regarding the BIP study.
In addition, during the last renewal the delta T for the permit (upstream and downstream temperature) was
reduced from 13.9 degrees Celsius to 8.5 degrees Celsius based on the evaluation conducted by EPA.
Therefore, there is no need to make additional changes to temperature standards. The large fish kills
during the summer 2007 were largely attributed to the exceptional drought and did not occur before or
after that year. In 2007 fish kills at other locations were also reported.
Furthermore, the temperature has been historically regulated as a monthly average limit in all North
Carolina wastewater permits. The Blue Ridge Paper operation does not produce wastewater with
significant fluctuation in the temperature as evidenced by the discharge monitoring reports. However, the
DWR will change the limit to the Weekly Average to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
Comment:
The Draft Permit's relaxed testing schedule for fish -tissue dioxin fails to protect of public health.
Response:
Elevated levels of dioxins were found in fish tissue in the Pigeon River (around the late 1980s).
Subsequently, a fish consumption advisory was issued for sport fish, catfish, and carp. The Canton Mill
has not discharged any detectable levels of 2,3,7,8 TCDD to the Pigeon River (since 1989) and dioxin in
fish tissue continues to decline. Most fish consumption advisories in North Carolina and Tennessee were
removed in 1998 and 2002. The last fish advisory for Common Carp in Waterville Lake was removed on
January 7, 2007. There are no fish advisories in the Pigeon River at this time.
Page 5 of 19

The May 2010 NPDES Permit (the last permit issued) for the Blue Ridge Canton Mill required three (3)
additional years of fish tissue sampling and surveillance During the sampling years between 2008-2013
the concentrations in fish tissue fillets were below the NC DHHS 4 ppt TEQ [toxic equivalency] action
level for fish consumption advisory. In 2014, TEQ values were below detection for channel catfish for
both sampling Stations; however, in common carp, TEQ values were 9.619 ppt for Station 4A and 2.928
for Station 4B. The TEQ results for common carp fillets in 2014 and 2007 could be anomalies, or could
indicate that some fish are present in the population with relatively higher TEQ values.
EPA conducted a High Volume dioxin sampling in the Pigeon River in 2014 and concluded that "the
most potent of congeners in the series, 2,3,7,8 — TCDD, was not detected in dissolved samples at the
reporting limit of 0.0012 parts per quadrillion at any station".
During the previous permit renewal all sampling results showed results below TEQ action level. Since the
fish dioxin concentration have been reduced steadily during the last several decades and the facility had
no dioxin detection in it's effluent since 1989 and the EPA High Volume dioxin sampling results, the fish
tissue sampling requirement in the permit will be reduced from 3 times/5 years to 1 time/5 years.
However, if any sampling result shows a TEQ exceedance, the facility shall conduct an additional round
of fish sampling.
In addition, the Dioxin congeners in the discharge will be monitoring on the annual basis. Only fish
tissue monitoring is being reduced to once/5 years.
Comment:
DEQ must develop and impose technology -based effluent limitations for numerous pollutants.
Response:
The Technology —based limits are already incorporated into the permit. The effluent limitations in the
permit are established in accordance with the existing federal and state rules and regulations. The TBELs
for all parameters of concern are not necessary because effluent limits and monitoring for all pollutants of
concern is not necessary to ensure that the pollutants are adequately controlled because many of the
pollutants originate from similar sources, have similar treatabilities, and are removed by similar
mechanisms. Because of this, it may be sufficient to establish effluent limits for one pollutant as a
surrogate or indicator pollutant that ensures the removal of other pollutants of concern.
The EPA has a separate Engineering Division that is responsible for the development of the TBELs for
various industrial source categories. Even with this level of effort it sometime takes EPA 30-40 years to
develop new or update existing TBELs. The DWR has no capacity to develop their own TBELs.
Following the coal ash accident at the Duke Dan River Plant, the DWR has followed a simplified
procedure to develop TBELs for coal-fired plants to avoid prolonged delay related to promulgation of
newly proposed EPA guidelines. In response to this effort SELC immediately claimed that these DWR
developed TBELs are unacceptable. Subsequently, DWR discontinued implementation of their own
TBELs and began implementation of the EPA TBELs as soon as they were officially promulgated. Then,
SELC immediately initiated a strong critique of new EPA TBELs. Hence, simplified procedure is not
acceptable to SELC, and EPA protocol cannot be used by DWR due to the very limited resources.
Comment:
The agency fails to evaluate available technologies for further reductions on colored discharges.
Response:
Page 6 of 19

The last complete evaluation of the color -reduction technologies was conducted by the EPA Tech Team
that consisted of several EPA experts and independent experts, including Dr. Liebergott. Since that time
no breakthrough in the color removal technology have been made. SELC made similar statements during
the last renewal and even contested the permit. They claimed that there is a feasible color removal
technology already exists. However, they lost their argument during litigation because they only provided
a single expert who was unable to name such a technology and only suggested that the facility works with
the Reverse Osmosis manufacturers to identify or develop such a technology. The final settlement
agreement did not include any color requirements that were more stringent than the final permit.
Blue Ridge Paper have been continually evaluating color removal efforts they make at the plant and
potentially new technologies. They have been unable to identify any new feasible technology. SELC is
also not naming any specific technology. It is important to understand that the market for such a
technology is extremely small. The pulp and paper industry have been downsizing for decades and most
facilities don't have color issues because they have a high dilution or discharge to the black water
streams. For example, there are 6 major dischargers in North Carolina that process cellulose and have a
colored wastewater. But only one facility has used a concerted effort to reduce color in their waste stream.
Similar situation exists in other states, as a result, the manufacturers of wastewater treatment are not
interested in development a treatment technology targeting color in pulp and paper facilities.
Comment:
DEQ advances a flawed, overly narrow interpretation of North Carolina's narrative aesthetic water quality
standard.
Response:
The narrative color standard consists of several components, and each of the components has to be
evaluated:
1) Public Health - There has never been a public health advisory related to color in North Carolina.
2) Aquatic Life and Wildlife - The University of Tennessee biological studies conducted in 2005
and 2012 concluded that the Pigeon River has a "balanced and indigenous fish community in the
Pigeon River below the mill's discharge". The facility is also consistently passing WET tests
during the last 5 years and for an extended time period before that. Therefore, the benthic
macroinvertebrate impairment is not believed to be associated with the color discharge.
3) Palatability of Fish — Color is not a parameter associated with fish palatability.
4) Secondary Recreation - Pigeon River in North Carolina continues to be used for secondary
recreation. Division's employees from the central office and the regional office have observed
people fishing below the discharge on numerous occasions.
5) Aesthetic Quality- NC has generally viewed color as primarily an aesthetic issue, and the
interpretation of color as an aesthetic impact is subjective.
Most of the color standard components are easily quantifiable and we can conclude that all of them are
being met in the Pigeon River. The most difficult component of the color standard is aesthetic because it
depends on the personal preferences and perceptions, vision characteristics, background light condition,
natural setting, bottom substrate, previous experiences, etc. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to
determine compliance with the color standard and it inevitably leads us to the need to translate the
narrative standard to a numeric value.
Page 7 of 19

One such attempt was made by the EPA in the early 1980's, the EPA interpreted the North Carolina color
standard as an instream standard of 50 PCU [Platinum -Cobalt units]. This number is based on the ability
of the average observer to detect instream color. However, it is important to emphasize that the ability to
detect color does not mean that the color is objectionable to the observer, which is the basis of the North
Carolina standard. Hence, the EPA interpretation is overly conservative.
There are very few studies on the color perception, the most definitive color perception research on pulp
mill color discharges has been conducted by Dr. Prestrude of Virginia Tech Depaitalent of Psychology.
His research was funded in part by the State of Tennessee, and included color perception studies in both
Tennessee and North Carolina waters (Pigeon River). Prestrude (July 1996) reported that the vast
majority of persons participating in the research projects considered water quality color in the
receiving stream as aesthetically acceptable in the 100-110 PCU color range.
Therefore, we have a contradiction between the EPA's interpretation of the North Carolina color standard
and the conclusions of the Prestrude's studies. It is reasonable to suggest that the true level of color that
does not impair aesthetic quality of the stream lies somewhere within the range of 50 PCU to 100 PCU_
Nevertheless, in the absence of acceptable site specific color perception studies, North Carolina DEQ is
forced to use 50 PCU as the de facto instream color standard.
According to the state rule 15A NCAC 02B .0206(a)(4) the aesthetic quality standards will be protected
using 30Q2 flow. The state rules do not explicitly define what kind of 30Q2 flow shall be used and the
facility provided justification to use a Monthly 30Q2 flow as a basis for compliance determination. The
justification for the Monthly 30Q2 flow is provided in Section 1.3.3 (page 1-12) of the attached document
entitled Comprehensive Assessment and Analysis of Color in the Pigeon River. The lowest Monthly
30Q2 flow at the facility is measured at 129 cfs, this number will be used for the compliance purposes at
the Fiberville bridge (0.4 miles below discharge).
The DEQ proposes that the permit condition shall require the facility to meet the monthly average A50
PCU (the difference between monthly average upstream and monthly average downstream true color) at
the Fiberville bridge when the flow in the Pigeon river is equal or above Monthly 30Q2. By meeting this
condition, the facility will not contravene the state color standard. Monthly average limit is used because
the state rules require employment of the 30Q2 flow basis and 30Q2 is a monthly flow. In addition, the
Discharge Monitoring Reports clearly demonstrates that effluent color is fairly consistent with low
variability with an exception of accidents.
This decision can be supported by the additional following information:
1). The Bowater Hiwassee River Study (Prestrude and Laws, 1989) identified that color increases of 50 to
60 PCU were acceptable to observers. Since the background color concentration for Blue Ridge Paper is
13 PCU, the downstream color concentration of 64 to 74 PCU should be acceptable to observers.
2). The recommendation from the Bowater Study was accepted by the State of Tennessee and it
established a color limit of 50 PCU above background for the Hiwassee River.
3) . Similar study conducted by Dr. Prestrude for the State of Maine resulted in the color limit of 40 PCU
above the background per river.
4). Dr. Prestrude conducted a color perception studies in both Tennessee and North Carolina waters
(Pigeon River). Prestrude (July 1996) reported that the vast majority of persons participating in the
research projects considered water quality color in the receiving stream as aesthetically acceptable in the
100-110 PCU color range.
Page 8 of 19

Comment:
DEQ must justify the use of a mixing zone, specify to which pollutants it applies, and develop spatial
limits.
Response:
The mixing zone in the permit is a de facto determination of the mixing zone that existed in the permit for
years. This practice is consistently used throughout the state, the first downstream sampling point
identifies the size of the mixing zone unless modeling indicates otherwise. The existing of the mixing
zone is allowed by state and federal rules since the discharge must be completely mixed with the
receiving stream prior to instream sampling to correctly determine instream concentration of the
constituents.
Comment:
DEQ must consider and evaluate any discharges of PFAS by the paper mill
Response:
The mill representative informed the DWR that PFAS compounds are not used in the manufacturing
process. However, PFAS compounds are ubiquitous in the surface waters due to their wide use in kitchen
utensils, clothing, furniture, food wraps, firefighting foams, etc. The facility also treats domestic
wastewater from the town and of Canton and their discharge might contain some PFAS that is unrelated
to the manufacturing.
Comment:
The Draft Permit overlooks multiple additional discharges of pollution seeping from sludge disposal sites
into the Pigeon River.
Response:
The DWR will work with the Division of Waste Management to inspect reported locations to determine if
they represent a point -source discharges that are under the jurisdiction of the NPDES program. The
presented evidence indicates a sheet flow, which is not regulated. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible
to collect a representative sample from such a sheet flow.
If it is determined that these are point source discharges, the DWR will require the facility to conduct
sampling in accordance with the procedures developed for Duke Energy. After sampling is conducted, the
data will be analyzed and appropriate measures taken, if necessary.
Unfortunately, SELC did not provide the exact values for each parameters they mentioned. They only
claimed elevated levels of some parameters and exceedance of target values for boron, cadmium, and
cobalt. The term "target values" is not used in the NPDES program, it is usually used by the Public Water
Supply program. Comparison of drinking water standards with the surface water data is not appropriate.
Cadmium has a State Standard, and Cobalt has the EPA criterion associated with it. Most of these
parameters can be present in coal ash because it contains almost every known element from the periodic
table. But the typical signature elements for this type of waste are Selenium, Arsenic, and Mercury; they
are not mentioned in the comments.
The Division requested the sampling results from the French Broad River riverkeeper to conduct
evaluation.
The results of the 4 samples from 2 landfills have been finally submitted by the Riverkeeper on
05/21/2021. They clearly demonstrate a complete absence of the coal -ash signature parameters such as
As, Se, and Hg. There were several compounds above detection level, including Ba, B, Sr, Zn, and Mo.
Page 9 of 19

But all of them were well below the water quality standards - Ba: 377 ug/L < 1,000 ug/L; B: 800 ug/L <
7,300; ug/L Sr: 3,260 ug/L<40,000 ug/L; Mo:19.7 ug/L < 2,000 ug/L: and Zn: 105 ug/L < 286 ug/L.
Only two elements in the seeps had very high concentration: Fe and Mn. However, state does not have
water quality standards for these parameters, in fact they have been removed during the last triennial
review because both elements naturally present in high concentrations in all state waters.
Comment:
Duty to Mitigate and Removed Substances Conditions.
Response:
The SELC did not provide evidence that PFAS or any other pollutants are entering surface water through
point -source discharges under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. The coal ash contained in the
landfill has been contained and is not entering waters of the state. The DWR will work with DWM to
address the issue of seepage.
Comment:
Factoring downstream pollution concentrations into water -quality -based effluent limitations.
Response:
The Division follows all the existing EPA guidance documents as well as the state and federal rules and
regulations in establishing NPDES limitations and other conditions. SELC did not provide any evidence
that would indicate any violations of the state standards or EPA criteria in the Pigeon River.
Comment:
The Draft Permit relies on outdated data to support its findings.
Response:
The Division will require submission of the new EPA Form 2C within 180 days from the effective date of
the permit to conduct an additional analysis of the discharge.
Comment:
DEQ must impose stricter controls to mitigate the mill's repeated fecal coliform violations.
Response:
The Division is working with the town of Canton to address the issue of the fecal coliform violations, this
issue is not related to the treatment system at the Blue Ridge Paper Treatment Plant. This issue is
relatively new, and historically the facility always complied with the Fecal Coliform limit.
Comment:
DEQ must not relax its chloroform limits for internal outfalls 002 and 003.
Response:
The Chloroform limits in the permit are the Technology Based Limits on the internal outfall, they are
based on the EPA Effluent Guidelines in 40 CFR 430 Subpart B. Wastewater discharged from the internal
outfall is being treated by the wastewater treatment system. The facility is not violating nationwide
Chloroform water quality criteria in the Pigeon River. Typically, the facility is discharging less than 3.5
microgram/Liter, which is significantly less than the water quality criterion of 60 micrograms/Liter. The
average concentration of the chloroform in the discharge is 1.75 microgram/Liter.
Page 10 of 19

However, the DWR recommends reducing Chloroform limits to the level implemented in the previous
permit. The same have been done for AOX (adsorbable organic halides) limits, Pentachlorophenol limits,
Trichlorophenol limits, and TSS limits.
Comment:
The Draft Permit must include a reference to an oxygen -injection facility 0.9 miles downstream of the
mill.
Response:
This facility has been eliminated and correction will be made in the Fact Sheet.
COMMENTS FROM TDEC
Comment:
According to the permit fact sheet, a comprehensive review of color removal was last conducted in 2006.
If this is correct another such review is overdue.
Response:
The facility has been conducting reviews of the color removing technologies on an annual basis during
the last permit cycle and will continue to do so during the next permit cycle. However, no break -through
feasible color removal technology have been identified.
The pulp and paper industry have been downsizing for decades and most facilities don't have color issues
because they have a high dilution or discharge to the black water streams. For example, there are 6 major
dischargers in North Carolina that process cellulose and have a colored wastewater. But only one facility
had a concerted effort to reduce color in their waste stream. Similar situation exists in other states, as a
result, the manufacturers of wastewater treatment are not interested in development of treatment
technologies targeting color in pulp and paper facilities.
Comment:
TDEC is also supportive of item #6 in this section (Section A. (8).), avoiding major maintenance outages
during the months of June thru September to minimize color during peak recreational use and lowest river
flow. Our records indicate that lowest flows often occur in September — November, not necessarily
coinciding with highest recreational use. Low river flows can also occur unpredictably at other times of
the year.
TDEC requests that this language be strengthened if possible, to avoid major outages during months of
highest recreational use AND periods of low river flow near or below the 30Q5. If such major outages
must be planned well in advance of known low flows, then TDEC would favor including October in the
months to be avoided as well.
Response:
Unfortunately, the major outages must be planned well in advance and changes to the language are not
possible. The month of October also cannot be included since the NCDOL safety requirements demand
that inspections of the recovery boiler to be conducted during September -October. The boiler can be
inspected only during an outage.
Comment:
TDEC requests that the new permit specifies that the next fish tissue monitoring effort be conducted in
the first year of the new permit.
Page 11 of 19

Response:
This change will be made in the final permit.
Comment:
Section A. (13.) Electronic Reporting of Discharge Monitoring Reports
TDEC requests that a requirement be added to this section for the permittee to additionally submit
monthly DMRs to the following email addresses: [e-mail] and [e-mail].
Response:
This request cannot be granted. All the permits in North Carolina contain the same legal requirements for
submitting electronic DMRs. Changing the requirements is not justified since all the data submitted by
the facilities is available on the EPA database ECHO.
Comment:
Lack of progress towards clean water
Response:
The DWR disagrees with this comment, the rationale for removing the Color Variance is explained in the
Fact Sheet in full detail.
Comment:
Different interpretations of water quality standards
Response:
Since TDEC refuses to provide de jure interpretation of its color standard, it is impossible to make a
direct comparison between our states. However, TDEC allows color change of 40 PCU for the Resolute
facility on the Hiwassee River. If you consider the fact that the upstream color on that river is likely to be
around 15 PCU, the TDEC de facto allows downstream color to be approximately 55 PCU. Hence, the
color standard interpretations are very similar in both states.
Comment:
"Objectionable" color is an instantaneous perception by the public
TDEC therefore recommends that the color limits be based upon individual monthly averages with the
application of an instantaneous daily maximum limit.
Response:
According to the NC state rules, aesthetic parameter limitations are based on the 30Q2 flows, not on the
daily maximum limits and individual monthly averages. Furthermore, the public perception argument is
very difficult to measure quantitatively, it can be very easily manipulated, which makes it almost
impossible to enforce and administer.
Comment:
According to the draft permit, the average concentration limit is only based on "flow equal to or greater
than the 30Q2 of 129 cfs." Tennessee has two significant issues with this approach.
Response:
According to the NC state rules, aesthetic parameter limitations are based on the 30Q2 flows. The
consultant provided justification to use the Monthly 30Q2 flow and the DWR will be happy to provide the
full text of the rationale to TDEC.
Page 12 of 19

The DWR reviewed flow data for 130 months beginning January 2008 and found that Monthly Average
flow below 129 cfs occurred 22 times, or 16.9% of the time.
Comment:
Removal of the Color Variance.
Response:
1. The Draft Permit is protective.
Response:
The justification for the removal of the Color Variance is explained in the Fact Sheet.
2. Interpretation of criteria
Response:
Since TDEC refuses to provide de jure interpretation of its color standard, it is impossible to make a
direct comparison between our states. However, TDEC allows color change of 40 PCU for the Resolute
facility on the Hiwassee River. If you consider the fact that the upstream color on that river is likely to be
around 15 PCU, the TDEC de facto allows downstream color to be approximately 55 PCU. Hence, the
color standard interpretations are very similar in both states.
TDEC also claims that the monthly average levels of color in TN on the Pigeon River of 30-40 PCU is
objectionable. Simultaneously they allow their own Resolute facility to reach 55 PCU below the
discharge and don't find this level objectionable. This unequal interpretation of the Tennessee color level
is unacceptable.
3. Noncompliance with existing permit
Response:
The DWR lists all the violations that occurred during the review period in the Fact Sheet. Please see
below:
During the review period (08/2013 through 09/2018) the following NOVs (notices of violation) have been
issued: 14 - for violating fecal coliform limit, 1 — for violating BOD limit, 1 — for violating TSS limit, and
2 — for violating Color limit.
4. The color limit violations were listed for exceeding Color TBELs.
Recreational use is not impacted by color. The rationale cites increased recreation in the Tennessee
portion of the river as partial justification for removing the variance in the North Carolina part of the
river. Nonetheless, the color of the Pigeon River in Tennessee is still found objectionable by citizens in
the area and continues to be on the Tennessee 303(d) list due to color.
Response:
Recreational use in Tennessee has increased dramatically. The number of rafters in TN has increased
from —21,000 in 1995 to almost 150,000 in 2007, and then again to 200,000 in 2011. Now this number is
mostly limited by the days when discharge from the dam is scheduled by Duke Energy. Without these
discharges, the rafting is almost impossible due to a small size and insufficient flow of the Pigeon River.
However, these discharges contain fine silt that is tan in color and it contributed to the discoloration of the
Pigeon River. There is no evidence to suggest that color in the Pigeon River has any prohibitive impact on
the rafting industry.
Page 13 of 19

The public perception argument is very difficult to measure quantitatively, it can be very easily
manipulated. Basing impairment on such a shaky argument is questionable.
5. Aquatic life is not being impacted by color. This may be true, but has it been demonstrated? The
Pigeon River is listed on North Carolina's 2018 303(d) List as impaired. The permit rationale states that
the documented aquatic life impacts are likely due to other pollutants. A more detailed discussion of the
biological data including direct comparisons to upstream or reference conditions is requested. We
understand that a University of Tennessee study concluded that the river near Canton supported a
"Balanced and Indigenous" aquatic life population, as required by its 316(a) temperature variance, but
North Carolina lists the river in the same segment as impaired for aquatic life support.
Response:
The impairment of the Pigeon River below the mill's discharge is based on the Biological Impairment
detected at one site in the town of Clyde. This impairment is the result of the very low habitat score
(around 51 out of 100), high conductivity, and the temperature impacts. In fact, this segment was not
impaired in 1997 when color discharge was 62,000 lb/day (current discharge is —35,000 lb/day). Despite
the significant color decrease since 1997, the macroinvertebrate community condition deteriorated. It
appears that there is no correlation between the color discharges and the biological impairment.
However, there is a very good correlation between macroinvertebrate conditions and droughts.
The facility is also consistently passing WET tests during the last 5 years and for an extended time period
before that. In March of 1991, the EPA published "Technical Support Document for Water Quality -based
Toxics Control". This document states that there is a very strong correlation (88%) between receiving
water impacts, including impact to macroinvertebrates, and whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests. Since the
effluent from Blue Ridge Paper comprises significant portion of the Pigeon River flow, the permit has a
WET test requirement at the effluent concentration of 90%. Since the facility has an excellent
compliance history, we can use this information to support our conclusion regarding the impact of color
on the Pigeon River. Scientific studies also indicate that stream color concentrations below 100 color
units have no effect on health of aquatic organisms (NCASI Special Report 9407, Human Perception and
Biological Impacts of Kraft Mill Effluent Color, June 1994).
North Carolina has a significant number of black water streams with color level much higher than 100
PCU due to the natural presence of lignins and tannins If these streams are not impacted by other factors,
the color alone does not impair aquatic life in these streams.
It is also very important to emphasize that factors used for detecting Biological Impairment and meeting
requirements for Balanced and Indigenous Population are different.
COMMENTS FROM CWFNC
Comment:
Color Special Condition and the EPA Tech Team report
Response:
Color reduction options for Blue Ridge Paper operations have been evaluated by Dr. Liebergott in a 2006
report submitted to US EPA. The report suggested several options for potential color removal, but
concluded that "Given the current state of adaptable technology and the mill's already high level of
environmental performance, future improvements are expected only to be marginally incremental."
Based on review of this report and all available information, the EPA Tech Team concluded that the
Canton Mill (under the most optimistic scenario) can achieve an annual average color limit of 32,000
lb/day. The EPA Technical Review Workgroup (TRW) unanimously agreed with this recommendation,
Page 14 of 19

and the TRW (2008) report recommended the following: "Based on implementation from the suite of
items above or their equivalent, the permit should require an effluent color target range of 32,000-37,000
lbs/day as an annual average by the end of the next permit term." The current permit contains a 35,000
lbs/day annual average limit, which is well within the range recommended by the TRW.
The color reduction requirements contained in the 2010 permit were derived directly from the mill's
efforts to identify possible color reduction measures and from the EPA TRW (2008) report. The mill was
required to evaluate several color reduction technologies, and implement those that are identified as
technically, operationally, and economically feasible, or identify other options that will result in similar
increments of color reduction. The list of possible reduction technologies includes further improvements
in leak and spill prevention and control (BMPs), process optimization, and addition of second stage
oxygen delignification on the softwood/pine fiber line.
DWQ (now DWR) participated in the TRW process that was conducted to evaluate technically,
economically, and operationally feasible technologies and BMPs that can be implemented by Blue Ridge
Paper to reduce the color discharge. The cost of all color reduction technologies and BMPs was evaluated
by the EPA Tech Team, by Dr. Liebergott, and by the TRW. The TRW evaluation was based on the
reports from 6 independent experts, and 2 experts from EPA HQ. All the TRW recommendations were
included in the 2010 permit.
The facility has provided annual reports on the color reduction methods included in the permit. Permit
required Blue Ridge Paper to evaluate two specific technologies: hydrogen peroxide enhancement of the
pine and hardwood extraction stages and the installation of 2nd stage oxygen delignification on the pine
line.
In laboratory testing and in -mill trials with hydrogen peroxide enhancement, total bleach plant effluent
color actually increased or showed no significant reduction. Full Scale implementation would
result in increased costs Enhanced extraction was not and is not technically, operationally or
economically feasible for Canton bleaching process.
The 2nd Stage 02 trials were conducted by an outside laboratory using pulp furnished by the facility. In
laboratory tests, there were significant issues with pulp strength, and a projected color reduction of less
than 1000 lbs per day at significant cost. The addition of second stage 02 would require significant capital
cost and operating expense. The facility submitted reports on both evaluations to DEQ and EPA. EPA
commented on the reports, and the facility responded to the comments.
It is also necessary to emphasize that prediction of the color reductions is extremely difficult because
color is not a conservative parameter and synergetic effect of the sewer generated color is strong. This
effect occurs when two streams of color combine and the resulting color is much higher than a simple
arithmetic addition of color from these streams. For example, during the 2001 permit renewal the
predicted reductions from the technologies by Dr. Liebergott and TRW ranged from 1,2241b/day to 3,534
lb/day and were based on the bleach plants effluent, not the final effluent. The past experience clearly
indicates that such predictions are not reliable. For example, during the period between 1999 through
2005 bleach plant effluent color has been reduced by 30%, which only resulted in 9.4% reduction in the
final effluent color. Such a discrepancy can be attributed to the sewer generated color. Therefore, all the
predicted reductions in color are likely to be overestimated.
The DWR does not object to the continued EPA Tech Team involvement in the permit renewal process,
but this process is expensive and no longer being financed by the federal government.
Comment:
Page 15 of 19

A Low Flow Contingency Plan must be an integral part of the permit's Color Special Provision, subject to
public review
Response:
This plan is already legally part of the permit and is available to the public for review.
Comment:
The NC Division of Water Quality must implement a numerical color standard applicable to colored
discharges throughout the state.
Response:
Color is a very subjective parameter, its perception and aesthetic objectionability depends on weather,
surrounding environment, bottom substrate color and texture, and personal preferences. EPA has not
developed a national criterion for color. EPA official document states that "numerical color limit is
meaningless" (Red Book 1976/1986 PB-263 943). Neither TN nor NC has a numeric color standard.
Examination of the 27 states in the EPA regions 1 -5 shows that 22 states have a narrative color standard
similar to North Carolina's color standard. EPA also did not implement any color standard for Pulp and
Paper facilities when the Cluster Rules were developed.
The DWR also objects to the use of the apparent color because it is strongly impacted by the sediment
and Blue Ridge Paper discharges the wastewater with very low turbidity level. It is not responsible for the
high precipitation events that generate high turbidity that impacts apparent color.
Comment:
Temperature Impact and Variance
Response:
Answered previously in the document.
Comment:
Biological and Chemical Waste Assimilation
Response:
A site -specific Best Available Technology (BAT) based limit was calculated for the 2001 permit to
determine the monthly average 5 - day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) limit. A site -specific
BAT approach was used because North Carolina's Division of Water Resources continues to agree that an
economically feasible end -of -pipe technology capable of reliably meeting the water quality limit specified
by the existing model does not exist at this time and no violations of the dissolved oxygen standard in the
river have been observed in recent years.
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources' recommendation for the 2001 permit BOD5 limit was
established based on the demonstrated level of performance for the existing treatment plant. Data on
treatment plant performance and influent loading from the Canton Mill (1998 through 2000) was
evaluated and examined for outliers. The maximum influent loading and lowest treatment plant
performance were used to develop the monthly average BOD5 limit. The data set was sufficient to
account for the day to day variability of the treatment system.
Over the time period evaluated, the treatment plant has performed extremely well and the DWR
recommended to retain a monthly average BOD5 loading of 3,205 lb/day in the draft permit
Page 16 of 19

Because Blue Ridge Paper has oxygen injection facilities in place to maintain the instream dissolved
oxygen standard should instream dissolved oxygen dictate a need, Blue Ridge Paper complies with the
conditions set forth by 40 CFR 125.3 (f). Originally, there were 4 oxygen injection facilities near the
facilities discharge. Due to the good performance of the wastewater treatment plant these injection
facilities were used very rarely and two of these facilities were eliminated as unnecessary.
The methodology used for the daily maximum 5 - day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) limit was
developed during the 1997 permit cycle. A site -specific daily maximum to monthly average multiplier
was used for determination of the recommended daily maximum limit. Using this methodology and
reviewing data since the Canton Modernization Project (1998 —2001) the recommended daily maximum
limit was based on a multiplier of 3.4 (daily maximum/monthly average) is 10,897 lb/day. The draft
Permit retains the existing BOD5 daily maximum limit.
The conditions in the Waterville Lake are complicated, but there have been Pigeon River studies
conducted by the mill's consultants and EPA demonstrating that there are numerous sources of color in
the Pigeon River watershed. Furthermore, extensive data set demonstrates that the highest monthly
average true color levels at the state line is within 30-40 PCU. This is well below color level of 50 PCU,
which was established by the EPA and set in a legal precedent by the court of law. Therefore, there is no
objective evidence to demonstrate that the TN side of the Pigeon Rive is negatively impacted by color.
Rationale for additional studies has not been presented. In addition, some color impacts on the TN side of
the border can be attributed to the fine silt discharged from the Waterville Lake. Unfortunately, these
discharges occur during the time of highest rafting periods and experienced by the public. But without
these discharges commercial rafting would not be possible due to the typically low flows during the high
recreation period.
Comment:
AOX and Chloroform
The previous permit allowed for increased release of adsorbable organic halides, noting that the limits had
been recalculated as per current production levels.
We call for AOX and chloroform limits to be reduced at least 15% each permit cycle, along with all TRI
chemicals that are carcinogens or released at a rate of 1,000 pounds per year, and for all such chemicals to
be sampled daily in the effluent and explicitly limited in the permit.
Response:
The statement regarding AOX increase is false, the previous permit did not allow increase in AOX.
The call for 15% reduction is baseless and cannot be achieved with any feasible existing technology.
Comment:
Fecal coliform.
Response:
Answered previously in the document.
Comment:
Turbidity.
Response:
Page 17 of 19

The existing permit already contained instream and effluent testing requirements for turbidity. Testing
indicated that the discharge from the facility has no impact on the instream turbidity. The discharge from
the facility was determined to be well below the state standard of 50 NTU.
Turbidity in the discharge from Walters Lake cannot be attributed to the Blue Ridge Paper.
Comment:
Dioxins and Furans, Fish Tissue Sampling, Full Ecological Assessment
The draft permit apparently changes the effluent limit, monitoring frequency, and locations at which the
full range of dioxin and furan congeners is to sampled and analyzed.
Response:
This statement is false, no such changes are proposed. The permit only proposes reduction in the fish
tissue sampling.
Comment:
Until a full ecological assessment is carried out, as required by Paragraph 33 of the Settlement Agreement
on the 1996 permit, it must be assumed that these persistent toxins can be remobilized with a severe storm
event, draining of Waterville Lake or other disturbance of sediments.
Response:
The EPA has conducted ecological assessment twice in the past two decades, one was done prior to the
2010 permit renewal and the second one prior to this renewal. CWFNC can obtain copies of these
assessments from EPA.
In addition, the mill's consultant AquAeTer has conducted a Comprehensive Assessment and Analysis of
Color in the Pigeon River and submitted it to the DWR in 2014. This study is available for the public
review.
Comment:
Fish palatability, Odor, Irritants in Water in Relation to Color
Response:
Color is not a parameter associated with fish palatability. Some studies do indicate that effluents from
pulp and paper mills are associated with undesirable flavor in fish taken from receiving waters (Baldwin
et al. 1961, Heil and Lindsay 1990, Kenefick et al. 1995, Redenbach 1997). In one effluent exposure
study involving three British Columbia pulp and paper mills, statistically based taste tests provided
convincing evidence that fish are rapidly (within hours) taste -tainted by exposure to effluents (Redenbach,
1997). In another fish tainting investigation of the upper Wisconsin River, Heil and Lindsay (1990)
suggest that Aspen and Pine fibers associated with sediments and benthic organisms below an unnamed
mill may provide a theoretical vector for the bioaccumulation of alkyl phenols in flavor -tainted Walleye.
However, the literature on fish palatability reveals no definitive evidence of any specific compounds
associated with mill effluents that are responsible for these issues. In a comprehensive review of
historical technical reports, Kenefick et al. 1995 notes that the tendency of compounds like the
chlorophenols or alkyl phenols to be reported in fish tainting studies does not mean that these identifiable
compounds were primarily responsible for causing the flavor taint. "Biological or natural sources of
tastes and odors in water must also be considered as potential causes of off -flavors and the possibility of
odor synergism when these compounds are combined with anthropogenic tainting compounds is also
likely".
Page 18 of 19

DWQ is not currently aware of any fish palatability studies that have been conducted on the Pigeon River.
And without knowledge of any specific risk factors that cause fish palatability issues where studies have
been conducted, no conclusions can be drawn about the presence of risk factors caused by the Canton
Mill. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has received comments on the topic from
concerned citizens, and has expressed that the agency views fish palatability as an important issue related
to North Carolina's anglers.
FERC license requirements for the Walters Hydro includes: no noxious odors or off taste of fish flesh in
blind samples (independent food science lab) prior to water release into the bypassed reach of the Pigeon
River at Walters Hydro.
DWQ also requested an input from 4 exiting staff members of NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) and one retired staff member of NCWRC. Their response was:
• No complaints have been filed to the WRC (on record or anecdotal) specifically related to
palatability of Pigeon River fish.
• NCWRC believes that they would have heard about such complaints if it were an issue among
NC anglers.
Comment:
Implications of Unfulfilled Provisions of the Settlement Agreement on 1996 Permit
Response:
All the provisions of the Settlement Agreement have been fulfilled prior to the 2010 renewal.
The call for an end of the pipe 50 PCU color limit is baseless and unprecedented. Even toxic compounds
are allowed to assimilate in the river using appropriate dilution factors — 7Q10 for chronic limits and
1Q10 for acute limits. The state rules require the use of 30Q2 for aesthetic standards.
Staff Recommendations:
Based on the review and assessment of the submitted comments the DWR staff recommends the
following changes to be made to the Permit:
1. Change the Temperature limit to the Weekly Average to meet the requirements of the Settlement
Agreement.
2. Reduce Chloroform limits to the level implemented in the previous permit.
3. Add a provision that the facility provides the next BIP study plan to NCWRCC for comments.
4. Add a requirement to conduct fish tissue monitoring during the first effective year of the renewed
permit.
Page 19 of 19